So I'm half way through overseeing a large project in ASP.NET 2.0. My
superiors have decided that it would be nice if we ensured the site worked
on all the major platforms (as they see it: IE, FireFox, and Safari). We've
made heavy usage of the new MENU control and other intrinsic 2.0
controls.... nothing fancy! just using ASP.NET's built-in controls and very
nice, pervasive, and clean usage of CSS.
Now I find after more testing that the Menu control doesn't scroll in
FireFox if its submenus spill past view? What? It works fine in IE.
And now I read that there are even worse problems with Safari.... and that
these problems aren't the client browser's fault (which would render stuff
fine if ASP.NET actually sent the page to it) but ASP.NET's controls dumb,
retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection" mechanisms.
Is this true? Come on now! Anyone else have experiences with this.... ya'lll
can't be programming solely for IE I hope? ;-)
--
-C. Moya www.cmoya.com 15  2283  http://weblogs.asp.net/dannychen/arc...21/431121.aspx might help
you out a bit.
Cheers,
Greg
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... So I'm half way through overseeing a large project in ASP.NET 2.0. My
superiors have decided that it would be nice if we ensured the site worked
on all the major platforms (as they see it: IE, FireFox, and Safari).
We've made heavy usage of the new MENU control and other intrinsic 2.0
controls.... nothing fancy! just using ASP.NET's built-in controls and
very nice, pervasive, and clean usage of CSS.
Now I find after more testing that the Menu control doesn't scroll in
FireFox if its submenus spill past view? What? It works fine in IE.
And now I read that there are even worse problems with Safari.... and that
these problems aren't the client browser's fault (which would render stuff
fine if ASP.NET actually sent the page to it) but ASP.NET's controls dumb,
retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection" mechanisms.
Is this true? Come on now! Anyone else have experiences with this....
ya'lll can't be programming solely for IE I hope? ;-)
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
nevermind ... wrong link out of my safari links... This is the one I was
looking for .. it actually references the first as well http://forums.asp.net/thread/1125883.aspx
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... So I'm half way through overseeing a large project in ASP.NET 2.0. My
superiors have decided that it would be nice if we ensured the site worked
on all the major platforms (as they see it: IE, FireFox, and Safari).
We've made heavy usage of the new MENU control and other intrinsic 2.0
controls.... nothing fancy! just using ASP.NET's built-in controls and
very nice, pervasive, and clean usage of CSS.
Now I find after more testing that the Menu control doesn't scroll in
FireFox if its submenus spill past view? What? It works fine in IE.
And now I read that there are even worse problems with Safari.... and that
these problems aren't the client browser's fault (which would render stuff
fine if ASP.NET actually sent the page to it) but ASP.NET's controls dumb,
retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection" mechanisms.
Is this true? Come on now! Anyone else have experiences with this....
ya'lll can't be programming solely for IE I hope? ;-)
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Greg Young [MVP]" <Dr*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... nevermind ... wrong link out of my safari links... This is the one I was
looking for .. it actually references the first as well
http://forums.asp.net/thread/1125883.aspx
Safari is just awful - I've given up trying to get things to work in it.
Instead, if Safari is detected, I pop a message on the site's homepage
inviting the user to download and install FireFox instead...
And if just fixing the menu is not enough...
For 2.0, there's a new .browser file definition system, although browsercaps can still be used.
See http://slingfive.com/pages/code/browserCaps/
and http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow...aps_spaces.txt
Test with : http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow..._info.aspx.txt
( copy that whole page as "Browser_info.aspx" and run it. )
You can call that page with the browser you're interested in defining in browsercaps,
and create an entry for it with the capabilities reported by that file.
For the new .browser file definition system, open several .browser files in the directory:
Drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\ CONFIG\Browsers
with a plain-text editor ( Notepad will do ) and analyze the contents.
As long as you know which browser capabilities the browser you're interested in sending correct
html to has ( by running "Browser_info.aspx" ) , you'll be able to create a .browser file for it.
re: ASP.NET's controls dumb, retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection" mechanisms.
Actually, it's a very granular -efficient- browser detection mechanism.
You *do* have to put some work into it, though.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Greg Young [MVP]" <Dr*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... http://weblogs.asp.net/dannychen/arc...21/431121.aspx might help
you out a bit.
Cheers,
Greg
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... So I'm half way through overseeing a large project in ASP.NET 2.0. My superiors have decided that
it would be nice if we ensured the site worked on all the major platforms (as they see it: IE,
FireFox, and Safari). We've made heavy usage of the new MENU control and other intrinsic 2.0
controls.... nothing fancy! just using ASP.NET's built-in controls and very nice, pervasive, and
clean usage of CSS.
Now I find after more testing that the Menu control doesn't scroll in FireFox if its submenus
spill past view? What? It works fine in IE.
And now I read that there are even worse problems with Safari.... and that these problems aren't
the client browser's fault (which would render stuff fine if ASP.NET actually sent the page to
it) but ASP.NET's controls dumb, retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection" mechanisms.
Is this true? Come on now! Anyone else have experiences with this.... ya'lll can't be programming
solely for IE I hope? ;-)
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
We'll probably just end up supporting IE and FireFox as well. But, from what
I've read, the Safari problems aren't so much Safari problems but ASP.NET's
controls' minterpretation of the browser's capabilities. I have no
experience first-hand. But, given all the other bugs and half-finished stuff
in ASP.NET 2.0, I wouldn't be surprised.
--
-C. Moya www.cmoya.com
> Actually, it's a very granular -efficient- browser detection mechanism. You *do* have to put some work into it, though.
And, I don't have time for that.
ASP.NET was suppossed to (in my naive mind) be a Productivity enhancer. Not
a rehash, reinvention of stuff from the past. I don't know all of Safari's
capabilities (same as Mozilla's I suspect) nor do I have to figure out that
it supports a feature but is sending a UserAgent string the ASP.NET guys
chose not program for. I got ASP.NET for a reason.... and it wasn't to
still- after all these years- being doing crap like this.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... And if just fixing the menu is not enough...
For 2.0, there's a new .browser file definition system, although
browsercaps can still be used.
See http://slingfive.com/pages/code/browserCaps/
and http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow...aps_spaces.txt
Test with :
http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow..._info.aspx.txt
( copy that whole page as "Browser_info.aspx" and run it. )
You can call that page with the browser you're interested in defining in
browsercaps,
and create an entry for it with the capabilities reported by that file.
For the new .browser file definition system, open several .browser files
in the directory:
Drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\ CONFIG\Browsers
with a plain-text editor ( Notepad will do ) and analyze the contents.
As long as you know which browser capabilities the browser you're
interested in sending correct
html to has ( by running "Browser_info.aspx" ) , you'll be able to create
a .browser file for it.
re: ASP.NET's controls dumb, retarded, not-thought-through browser
"detection" mechanisms.
Actually, it's a very granular -efficient- browser detection mechanism.
You *do* have to put some work into it, though.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Greg Young [MVP]" <Dr*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... http://weblogs.asp.net/dannychen/arc...21/431121.aspx might
help
you out a bit.
Cheers,
Greg
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... So I'm half way through overseeing a large project in ASP.NET 2.0. My
superiors have decided that it would be nice if we ensured the site
worked on all the major platforms (as they see it: IE, FireFox, and
Safari). We've made heavy usage of the new MENU control and other
intrinsic 2.0 controls.... nothing fancy! just using ASP.NET's built-in
controls and very nice, pervasive, and clean usage of CSS.
Now I find after more testing that the Menu control doesn't scroll in
FireFox if its submenus spill past view? What? It works fine in IE.
And now I read that there are even worse problems with Safari.... and
that these problems aren't the client browser's fault (which would
render stuff fine if ASP.NET actually sent the page to it) but ASP.NET's
controls dumb, retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection"
mechanisms.
Is this true? Come on now! Anyone else have experiences with this....
ya'lll can't be programming solely for IE I hope? ;-)
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
re: You *do* have to put some work into it, though.
And, I don't have time for that.
I feel sorry for you, then.
*Nobody* supports cross-browser compatibility out-of-the-box.
If you don't write that functionality in, by assuring that you have
updated definitions for all the browsers you want to support, you're out of luck.
re: I don't know all of Safari's capabilities
All you need to do is run the file pointed out while running Safari:
http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow..._info.aspx.txt
That will tell you its capabilities.
Then, you need to write a browsecaps entry...or a .browser file.
It's not too hard.
After all, it's *you* who wants to support that browser.
To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new browser
were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to support it ?
Nonsense!
That's the developer's responsibility...even if you feel you don't have the "time" for that.
It is *you* who wants to support a browser...not Microsoft.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... Actually, it's a very granular -efficient- browser detection mechanism.
You *do* have to put some work into it, though.
And, I don't have time for that.
ASP.NET was suppossed to (in my naive mind) be a Productivity enhancer. Not a rehash, reinvention
of stuff from the past. I don't know all of Safari's capabilities (same as Mozilla's I suspect)
nor do I have to figure out that it supports a feature but is sending a UserAgent string the
ASP.NET guys chose not program for. I got ASP.NET for a reason.... and it wasn't to still- after
all these years- being doing crap like this.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... And if just fixing the menu is not enough...
For 2.0, there's a new .browser file definition system, although browsercaps can still be used.
See http://slingfive.com/pages/code/browserCaps/
and http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow...aps_spaces.txt
Test with :
http://slingfive.com/pages/code/brow..._info.aspx.txt
( copy that whole page as "Browser_info.aspx" and run it. )
You can call that page with the browser you're interested in defining in browsercaps,
and create an entry for it with the capabilities reported by that file.
For the new .browser file definition system, open several .browser files in the directory:
Drive:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\ CONFIG\Browsers
with a plain-text editor ( Notepad will do ) and analyze the contents.
As long as you know which browser capabilities the browser you're interested in sending correct
html to has ( by running "Browser_info.aspx" ) , you'll be able to create a .browser file for it.
re: ASP.NET's controls dumb, retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection" mechanisms.
Actually, it's a very granular -efficient- browser detection mechanism.
You *do* have to put some work into it, though.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Greg Young [MVP]" <Dr*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... http://weblogs.asp.net/dannychen/arc...21/431121.aspx might help
you out a bit.
Cheers,
Greg
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
So I'm half way through overseeing a large project in ASP.NET 2.0. My superiors have decided
that it would be nice if we ensured the site worked on all the major platforms (as they see it:
IE, FireFox, and Safari). We've made heavy usage of the new MENU control and other intrinsic
2.0 controls.... nothing fancy! just using ASP.NET's built-in controls and very nice,
pervasive, and clean usage of CSS.
Now I find after more testing that the Menu control doesn't scroll in FireFox if its submenus
spill past view? What? It works fine in IE.
And now I read that there are even worse problems with Safari.... and that these problems
aren't the client browser's fault (which would render stuff fine if ASP.NET actually sent the
page to it) but ASP.NET's controls dumb, retarded, not-thought-through browser "detection"
mechanisms.
Is this true? Come on now! Anyone else have experiences with this.... ya'lll can't be
programming solely for IE I hope? ;-)
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
> To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new browser
were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to support
it ?
If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML and
controls should run on ALL browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs
on the browser's part), render suitable downlevel HTML if it wished, but
never ever blow up or cease to function.
The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not
really working) instead of producing nice thought-through compliant code
through and through.
--
-C. Moya www.cmoya.com
re: If the browser supported W3C standards, yes.
Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C standards.
Safari doesn't support neither "straight" 3.2 HTML, which ASP.NET is capable of sending,
nor does it support "straight" 4.0 HTML, which ASP.NET is *also* capable of sending.
It doesn't support DHTML either.
In fact, it doesn't support *any* of the "standard" W3C standards.
Safari is a browser designed for MACs...which is notorious for not supporting W3C standards.
OTOH, Safari *does* support HTML, XHTML 1.0, DOM, CSS, SSL, and JavaScript.
Maybe you should stick to those standards when targeting Safari.
re: The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
The fact is that you are trying to justify what can't be justified. See above.
Safari web browser shipped with certain versions of Mac OS X
may cause difficulties in browsing (especially in scrolling down screens).
In the meantime, other browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox etc..)
are compatible with most standards.
Check out Safari's long list of deficiencies :
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=876
re: overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing exceptions if its not provided
There's no such thing as "overusing UserAgent information".
A UserAgent is the standard by which the W3C directives recognize browsers.
If a browser does not put enough info in it's useragent to properly identify it,
and therefore allow th identification of it's capabilities, that's not the browser
capabilities object's fault.
I dare you to find, on the web, exactly *which* HTML standard Safari supports.
Apple doesn't even make *that* information available publicly, AFAIK.
I'll welcome comprehensive information regarding the W3C standards Safari supports.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new browser
were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to support it ?
If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML and controls should run on ALL
browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs on the browser's part), render suitable downlevel
HTML if it wished, but never ever blow up or cease to function.
The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
> Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C standards.
I defer to your experience on that one. I have no clue.
But, I will reiterate, that I (perhaps naively) expect any page I construct
using ASP.NET intrinsic controls, not a lot of my own fancy JavaScript, and
decent CSS, to display on all browsers. If it doesn't, or doesn't do it
properly, it is (IMO) ASP.NET's fault. We paid $$$.
That's it. But, I hear what you're saying.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ut**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... re: If the browser supported W3C standards, yes.
Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
standards.
Safari doesn't support neither "straight" 3.2 HTML, which ASP.NET is
capable of sending,
nor does it support "straight" 4.0 HTML, which ASP.NET is *also* capable
of sending.
It doesn't support DHTML either.
In fact, it doesn't support *any* of the "standard" W3C standards.
Safari is a browser designed for MACs...which is notorious for not
supporting W3C standards.
OTOH, Safari *does* support HTML, XHTML 1.0, DOM, CSS, SSL, and
JavaScript.
Maybe you should stick to those standards when targeting Safari.
re: The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
The fact is that you are trying to justify what can't be justified. See
above.
Safari web browser shipped with certain versions of Mac OS X
may cause difficulties in browsing (especially in scrolling down screens).
In the meantime, other browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla,
Firefox etc..)
are compatible with most standards.
Check out Safari's long list of deficiencies :
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=876
re: overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing exceptions if
its not provided
There's no such thing as "overusing UserAgent information".
A UserAgent is the standard by which the W3C directives recognize
browsers.
If a browser does not put enough info in it's useragent to properly
identify it,
and therefore allow th identification of it's capabilities, that's not the
browser
capabilities object's fault.
I dare you to find, on the web, exactly *which* HTML standard Safari
supports.
Apple doesn't even make *that* information available publicly, AFAIK.
I'll welcome comprehensive information regarding the W3C standards Safari
supports.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new
browser
were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to
support it ?
If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML and
controls should run on ALL
browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs on the browser's part),
render suitable downlevel
HTML if it wished, but never ever blow up or cease to function.
The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
It's worth pointing out that IE is not fully DOM2-compliant through IE
6, even though Microsoft participated in developing the DOM2 standards
shortly prior to the release of IE 5. I've been doing a lot of client
scripting for IE and FireFox and FF is definitely closer to full
compliance. Haven't tried to support Safari.
Juan, I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it? If not
1%, what, 2? 5? 10? As CMM points out, Studio ain't cheap if you end
up having to roll your own controls anyway...
--Russell
CMM wrote: Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
standards.
I defer to your experience on that one. I have no clue.
But, I will reiterate, that I (perhaps naively) expect any page I construct
using ASP.NET intrinsic controls, not a lot of my own fancy JavaScript, and
decent CSS, to display on all browsers. If it doesn't, or doesn't do it
properly, it is (IMO) ASP.NET's fault. We paid $$$.
That's it. But, I hear what you're saying.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ut**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... re: If the browser supported W3C standards, yes.
Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
standards.
Safari doesn't support neither "straight" 3.2 HTML, which ASP.NET is
capable of sending,
nor does it support "straight" 4.0 HTML, which ASP.NET is *also* capable
of sending.
It doesn't support DHTML either.
In fact, it doesn't support *any* of the "standard" W3C standards.
Safari is a browser designed for MACs...which is notorious for not
supporting W3C standards.
OTOH, Safari *does* support HTML, XHTML 1.0, DOM, CSS, SSL, and
JavaScript.
Maybe you should stick to those standards when targeting Safari.
re: The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
The fact is that you are trying to justify what can't be justified. See
above.
Safari web browser shipped with certain versions of Mac OS X
may cause difficulties in browsing (especially in scrolling down screens).
In the meantime, other browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla,
Firefox etc..)
are compatible with most standards.
Check out Safari's long list of deficiencies :
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=876
re: overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing exceptions if
its not provided
There's no such thing as "overusing UserAgent information".
A UserAgent is the standard by which the W3C directives recognize
browsers.
If a browser does not put enough info in it's useragent to properly
identify it,
and therefore allow th identification of it's capabilities, that's not the
browser
capabilities object's fault.
I dare you to find, on the web, exactly *which* HTML standard Safari
supports.
Apple doesn't even make *that* information available publicly, AFAIK.
I'll welcome comprehensive information regarding the W3C standards Safari
supports.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new
browser
were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to
support it ?
If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML and
controls should run on ALL
browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs on the browser's part),
render suitable downlevel
HTML if it wished, but never ever blow up or cease to function.
The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
Hi, Russell.
Browsers will never be compatible with each other, imho.
Standards will never be accepted industry-wide.
Unfortunate ? Yes. Avoidable ? I don't think so.
*All* browser providers want to have their own, unique, features.
It's simply not possible for one browser to render all features of all browsers.
That's why it's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft, or any other company
which provides developer tools for that matter, provide cross-browser
compatibilty for all browsers out of the box.
It is up to the individual developers, or developer teams, to write the tools
which provide cross-browser compatibility across the board.
re: I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it?
Like I just posited above, that's not Microsoft's,
or any other provider of developer tools', responsibility.
Whatever browsers Microsoft, or any other developer tool provider,
supports, I consider frosting on my developer cake.
For any browser which *I* want to support, I will research and write a custom
set of capabilities which I can identify and program for.
ASP.NET provides for a very clean way to send 3.2, 4.0, JavaScript and DHTML
to any browser whose capabilities are identified, plus, it provides additional features
which are renderable only by IE.
It's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft provide a way for all browsers to render everything.
For years I maintained an up-to-date browscap.ini for ASP ( Active Server Pages 2.0/3.0 )
which was far superior to anything which Microsoft or Browserhawk provided.
Did I complain because Microsoft didn't provide browscap.ini updated ?
No. That would have been silly.
I exploited that opportunity to make a name for myself in the Active Server Pages world.
At one point, I estimated that my browscap.ini had been downloaded over 3,000,000 times.
When you have a competitive advantage over others ( and having better browser identification,
so that you can reach a higher user base *is* a competitive advantage ) you should be thankful
that there's a niche for your developer skills.
If Microsoft provided everything for us, there'd be no need for skilled developers.
I hope this ( too long ) post explains a bit better how, and why, I feel like I do.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Russell" <ru*****@goisc.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
It's worth pointing out that IE is not fully DOM2-compliant through IE
6, even though Microsoft participated in developing the DOM2 standards
shortly prior to the release of IE 5. I've been doing a lot of client
scripting for IE and FireFox and FF is definitely closer to full
compliance. Haven't tried to support Safari.
Juan, I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it? If not
1%, what, 2? 5? 10? As CMM points out, Studio ain't cheap if you end
up having to roll your own controls anyway...
--Russell
CMM wrote: Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
standards.
I defer to your experience on that one. I have no clue.
But, I will reiterate, that I (perhaps naively) expect any page I construct
using ASP.NET intrinsic controls, not a lot of my own fancy JavaScript, and
decent CSS, to display on all browsers. If it doesn't, or doesn't do it
properly, it is (IMO) ASP.NET's fault. We paid $$$.
That's it. But, I hear what you're saying.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ut**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... re: If the browser supported W3C standards, yes.
Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
standards.
Safari doesn't support neither "straight" 3.2 HTML, which ASP.NET is
capable of sending,
nor does it support "straight" 4.0 HTML, which ASP.NET is *also* capable
of sending.
It doesn't support DHTML either.
In fact, it doesn't support *any* of the "standard" W3C standards.
Safari is a browser designed for MACs...which is notorious for not
supporting W3C standards.
OTOH, Safari *does* support HTML, XHTML 1.0, DOM, CSS, SSL, and
JavaScript.
Maybe you should stick to those standards when targeting Safari.
re: The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
The fact is that you are trying to justify what can't be justified. See
above.
Safari web browser shipped with certain versions of Mac OS X
may cause difficulties in browsing (especially in scrolling down screens).
In the meantime, other browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla,
Firefox etc..)
are compatible with most standards.
Check out Safari's long list of deficiencies :
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=876
re: overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing exceptions if
its not provided
There's no such thing as "overusing UserAgent information".
A UserAgent is the standard by which the W3C directives recognize
browsers.
If a browser does not put enough info in it's useragent to properly
identify it,
and therefore allow th identification of it's capabilities, that's not the
browser
capabilities object's fault.
I dare you to find, on the web, exactly *which* HTML standard Safari
supports.
Apple doesn't even make *that* information available publicly, AFAIK.
I'll welcome comprehensive information regarding the W3C standards Safari
supports.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new
browser
were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to
support it ?
If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML and
controls should run on ALL
browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs on the browser's part),
render suitable downlevel
HTML if it wished, but never ever blow up or cease to function.
The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
(blowing up and throwing
exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
of producing nice
thought-through compliant code through and through.
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
> "It's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft provide a way for all browsers to render everything."
Nobody said "render everything." But, there is a common denominator that
INTRINSIC controls should support. Lots of people have written nice cross
browser menus.... why can't Microsoft? YOU wrote a nice cross-browser caps
thingamagic, why can't Microsoft? I'm a little sick and tired of MS
apologists (and I'm a long time MS defender!) saying something is
unrealistic for a multi-billion dollar company. That they choose not to or
fail to do so is totally on Microsoft and shouldn't be dismissed.
Did I complain because Microsoft didn't provide browscap.ini updated ?
I exploited that opportunity to make a name for myself in the Active
Server Pages world.
At one point, I estimated that my browscap.ini had been downloaded over
3,000,000 times.
When ASP was nascent and standards brand new I can forgive it. I expect more
from Microsoft nowadays. You should too.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... Hi, Russell.
Browsers will never be compatible with each other, imho.
Standards will never be accepted industry-wide.
Unfortunate ? Yes. Avoidable ? I don't think so.
*All* browser providers want to have their own, unique, features.
It's simply not possible for one browser to render all features of all
browsers.
That's why it's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft, or any other company
which provides developer tools for that matter, provide cross-browser
compatibilty for all browsers out of the box.
It is up to the individual developers, or developer teams, to write the
tools
which provide cross-browser compatibility across the board.
re: I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it?
Like I just posited above, that's not Microsoft's,
or any other provider of developer tools', responsibility.
Whatever browsers Microsoft, or any other developer tool provider,
supports, I consider frosting on my developer cake.
For any browser which *I* want to support, I will research and write a
custom
set of capabilities which I can identify and program for.
ASP.NET provides for a very clean way to send 3.2, 4.0, JavaScript and
DHTML
to any browser whose capabilities are identified, plus, it provides
additional features
which are renderable only by IE.
It's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft provide a way for all browsers
to render everything.
For years I maintained an up-to-date browscap.ini for ASP ( Active Server
Pages 2.0/3.0 )
which was far superior to anything which Microsoft or Browserhawk
provided.
Did I complain because Microsoft didn't provide browscap.ini updated ?
No. That would have been silly.
I exploited that opportunity to make a name for myself in the Active
Server Pages world.
At one point, I estimated that my browscap.ini had been downloaded over
3,000,000 times.
When you have a competitive advantage over others ( and having better
browser identification,
so that you can reach a higher user base *is* a competitive advantage )
you should be thankful
that there's a niche for your developer skills.
If Microsoft provided everything for us, there'd be no need for skilled
developers.
I hope this ( too long ) post explains a bit better how, and why, I feel
like I do.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Russell" <ru*****@goisc.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
It's worth pointing out that IE is not fully DOM2-compliant through IE
6, even though Microsoft participated in developing the DOM2 standards
shortly prior to the release of IE 5. I've been doing a lot of client
scripting for IE and FireFox and FF is definitely closer to full
compliance. Haven't tried to support Safari.
Juan, I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it? If not
1%, what, 2? 5? 10? As CMM points out, Studio ain't cheap if you end
up having to roll your own controls anyway...
--Russell
CMM wrote: > Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
> standards.
I defer to your experience on that one. I have no clue.
But, I will reiterate, that I (perhaps naively) expect any page I
construct
using ASP.NET intrinsic controls, not a lot of my own fancy JavaScript,
and
decent CSS, to display on all browsers. If it doesn't, or doesn't do it
properly, it is (IMO) ASP.NET's fault. We paid $$$.
That's it. But, I hear what you're saying.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ut**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > re:
>> If the browser supported W3C standards, yes.
>
> Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
> standards.
>
> Safari doesn't support neither "straight" 3.2 HTML, which ASP.NET is
> capable of sending,
> nor does it support "straight" 4.0 HTML, which ASP.NET is *also*
> capable
> of sending.
>
> It doesn't support DHTML either.
> In fact, it doesn't support *any* of the "standard" W3C standards.
>
> Safari is a browser designed for MACs...which is notorious for not
> supporting W3C standards.
>
> OTOH, Safari *does* support HTML, XHTML 1.0, DOM, CSS, SSL, and
> JavaScript.
> Maybe you should stick to those standards when targeting Safari.
>
> re:
>> The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
>> (blowing up and throwing
>> exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working)
>> instead
>> of producing nice
>> thought-through compliant code through and through.
>
> The fact is that you are trying to justify what can't be justified. See
> above.
>
> Safari web browser shipped with certain versions of Mac OS X
> may cause difficulties in browsing (especially in scrolling down
> screens).
>
> In the meantime, other browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla,
> Firefox etc..)
> are compatible with most standards.
>
> Check out Safari's long list of deficiencies :
>
> http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=876
>
> re:
>> overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing exceptions
>> if
>> its not provided
>
> There's no such thing as "overusing UserAgent information".
> A UserAgent is the standard by which the W3C directives recognize
> browsers.
>
> If a browser does not put enough info in it's useragent to properly
> identify it,
> and therefore allow th identification of it's capabilities, that's not
> the
> browser
> capabilities object's fault.
>
> I dare you to find, on the web, exactly *which* HTML standard Safari
> supports.
> Apple doesn't even make *that* information available publicly, AFAIK.
>
> I'll welcome comprehensive information regarding the W3C standards
> Safari
> supports.
>
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
> aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
> asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
> foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
> ===================================
> "CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new
>>> browser
>>> were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to
>>> support it ?
>>
>> If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML
>> and
>> controls should run on ALL
>> browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs on the browser's
>> part),
>> render suitable downlevel
>> HTML if it wished, but never ever blow up or cease to function.
>>
>> The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
>> (blowing up and throwing
>> exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working)
>> instead
>> of producing nice
>> thought-through compliant code through and through.
>
>> -C. Moya
>> www.cmoya.com
>
>
>
>
Different opinions are what makes the world go round.
You have your opinion...and I have mine.
Live long and prosper.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... "It's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft provide a way for all browsers to render everything."
Nobody said "render everything." But, there is a common denominator that INTRINSIC controls should
support. Lots of people have written nice cross browser menus.... why can't Microsoft? YOU wrote a
nice cross-browser caps thingamagic, why can't Microsoft? I'm a little sick and tired of MS
apologists (and I'm a long time MS defender!) saying something is unrealistic for a multi-billion
dollar company. That they choose not to or fail to do so is totally on Microsoft and shouldn't be
dismissed.
Did I complain because Microsoft didn't provide browscap.ini updated ?
I exploited that opportunity to make a name for myself in the Active Server Pages world.
At one point, I estimated that my browscap.ini had been downloaded over 3,000,000 times.
When ASP was nascent and standards brand new I can forgive it. I expect more from Microsoft
nowadays. You should too.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... Hi, Russell.
Browsers will never be compatible with each other, imho.
Standards will never be accepted industry-wide.
Unfortunate ? Yes. Avoidable ? I don't think so.
*All* browser providers want to have their own, unique, features.
It's simply not possible for one browser to render all features of all browsers.
That's why it's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft, or any other company
which provides developer tools for that matter, provide cross-browser
compatibilty for all browsers out of the box.
It is up to the individual developers, or developer teams, to write the tools
which provide cross-browser compatibility across the board.
re: I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it?
Like I just posited above, that's not Microsoft's,
or any other provider of developer tools', responsibility.
Whatever browsers Microsoft, or any other developer tool provider,
supports, I consider frosting on my developer cake.
For any browser which *I* want to support, I will research and write a custom
set of capabilities which I can identify and program for.
ASP.NET provides for a very clean way to send 3.2, 4.0, JavaScript and DHTML
to any browser whose capabilities are identified, plus, it provides additional features
which are renderable only by IE.
It's unrealistic to expect that Microsoft provide a way for all browsers to render everything.
For years I maintained an up-to-date browscap.ini for ASP ( Active Server Pages 2.0/3.0 )
which was far superior to anything which Microsoft or Browserhawk provided.
Did I complain because Microsoft didn't provide browscap.ini updated ?
No. That would have been silly.
I exploited that opportunity to make a name for myself in the Active Server Pages world.
At one point, I estimated that my browscap.ini had been downloaded over 3,000,000 times.
When you have a competitive advantage over others ( and having better browser identification,
so that you can reach a higher user base *is* a competitive advantage ) you should be thankful
that there's a niche for your developer skills.
If Microsoft provided everything for us, there'd be no need for skilled developers.
I hope this ( too long ) post explains a bit better how, and why, I feel like I do.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Russell" <ru*****@goisc.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
It's worth pointing out that IE is not fully DOM2-compliant through IE
6, even though Microsoft participated in developing the DOM2 standards
shortly prior to the release of IE 5. I've been doing a lot of client
scripting for IE and FireFox and FF is definitely closer to full
compliance. Haven't tried to support Safari.
Juan, I am curious what % of market share you think a browser should
have before MS ensures that their controls work well with it? If not
1%, what, 2? 5? 10? As CMM points out, Studio ain't cheap if you end
up having to roll your own controls anyway...
--Russell
CMM wrote: > Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
> standards.
I defer to your experience on that one. I have no clue.
But, I will reiterate, that I (perhaps naively) expect any page I construct
using ASP.NET intrinsic controls, not a lot of my own fancy JavaScript, and
decent CSS, to display on all browsers. If it doesn't, or doesn't do it
properly, it is (IMO) ASP.NET's fault. We paid $$$.
That's it. But, I hear what you're saying.
--
-C. Moya
www.cmoya.com
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ut**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> re:
>> If the browser supported W3C standards, yes.
>
> Therefore, the foregone conclusion is that Safari doesn't support W3C
> standards.
>
> Safari doesn't support neither "straight" 3.2 HTML, which ASP.NET is
> capable of sending,
> nor does it support "straight" 4.0 HTML, which ASP.NET is *also* capable
> of sending.
>
> It doesn't support DHTML either.
> In fact, it doesn't support *any* of the "standard" W3C standards.
>
> Safari is a browser designed for MACs...which is notorious for not
> supporting W3C standards.
>
> OTOH, Safari *does* support HTML, XHTML 1.0, DOM, CSS, SSL, and
> JavaScript.
> Maybe you should stick to those standards when targeting Safari.
>
> re:
>> The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
>> (blowing up and throwing
>> exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
>> of producing nice
>> thought-through compliant code through and through.
>
> The fact is that you are trying to justify what can't be justified. See
> above.
>
> Safari web browser shipped with certain versions of Mac OS X
> may cause difficulties in browsing (especially in scrolling down screens).
>
> In the meantime, other browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla,
> Firefox etc..)
> are compatible with most standards.
>
> Check out Safari's long list of deficiencies :
>
> http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=876
>
> re:
>> overuse the UserAgent information (blowing up and throwing exceptions if
>> its not provided
>
> There's no such thing as "overusing UserAgent information".
> A UserAgent is the standard by which the W3C directives recognize
> browsers.
>
> If a browser does not put enough info in it's useragent to properly
> identify it,
> and therefore allow th identification of it's capabilities, that's not the
> browser
> capabilities object's fault.
>
> I dare you to find, on the web, exactly *which* HTML standard Safari
> supports.
> Apple doesn't even make *that* information available publicly, AFAIK.
>
> I'll welcome comprehensive information regarding the W3C standards Safari
> supports.
>
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
> aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
> asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
> foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
> ===================================
> "CMM" <cm*@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:es**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> To give you a further example, would you expect Microsoft, if a new
>>> browser
>>> were to be invented today which achieved 1% market penetration, to
>>> support it ?
>>
>> If the browser supported W3C standards, yes. ASP.NET generated HTML and
>> controls should run on ALL
>> browsers that conform to standards (barring bugs on the browser's part),
>> render suitable downlevel
>> HTML if it wished, but never ever blow up or cease to function.
>>
>> The fact is that 2.0's new controls overuse the UserAgent information
>> (blowing up and throwing
>> exceptions if its not provided or otherwise not really working) instead
>> of producing nice
>> thought-through compliant code through and through.
>
>> -C. Moya
>> www.cmoya.com
>
>
>
>
> Browsers will never be compatible with each other, imho.
I don't expect browsers to support each others' extra features. But I
do very much hope that IE7 will be fully DOM2-compliant. This ought to
be a goal for ANY browser written today. Then I could just code to
DOM2, ignore all the extras, and be on my way.
But that's not the case today, and I'd agree that no one can target all
possible browsers. However, I do think that a company that sells web
development software should not sell components that aren't fully
compatible with at least 99% of the browser market. Otherwise the
controls are broken more than 1% of the time... for comparison, would
you accept less than 99% uptime from your ISP?
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Simba |
last post by:
In some pages of my website I use a code like the following:
for (var n = 0; n < getTagsArray("SPAN").length; n++){
//SPAN is just an example. I also use other tags
tag =...
|
by: HchC |
last post by:
Not looking for a special or fancy css stylesheet.
For a HTML beginner, stylesheet is still far away from now. Not even said
thinking about cross browser. But, an XHTML page without stylesheet look...
|
by: Mark Rae |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm interested in your opinion concerning how far you would consider it
necessary to code for cross-browser compatibility these days, especially for
public-facing Internet sites...
...
|
by: Eric Caron |
last post by:
Hi everybody,
I was doing some cross-browser tests today and I found out that if you
specify the width and height for a button type control, asp.net doesn't
output the style information when...
|
by: Questman |
last post by:
Good afternoon,
Does anyone have any code that implements, or approaches implementing, a
cross-browser DHTML/JS solution to provide an Excel-like Grid on a web
page - I'm trying to convert an...
|
by: permanent.tourist |
last post by:
I'm having a hell of a job getting this to work in Safari: the only
thing I can think of is that one can't use reload() across to another
frame for security reasons. Does anyone have a concrete...
|
by: Rancid Buttchutney |
last post by:
I've tried searching the web but I've had little success finding a
cross-browser(IE, Firefox and Opera anyway) implementation of a
restricted text INPUT that works in realtime before a character...
|
by: Simon |
last post by:
Hi All,
An experiment i'm doing requires requires a synchronous cross-domain
request, without using a proxy. I wondered if anyone had any ideas to
help me achieve this.
Below is what I have...
|
by: Jeff |
last post by:
We have an intranet website that currently uses ActiveX but we need to
make it cross-browser compatible and also get around the problems
we've been having with making it work with IE7 and Vista. We...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
| |
